I was dismayed to read articles carried by the industry group National Road Carriers (online 8 August) and the New Zealand Herald (Craig Kapitan, 1 August, ‘Auckland business owner Ashik Ali admits unroadworthy truck killed worker in Remuera’) about the death of roadworker Johnathon Walters. The tale needed to be told – so good on NRC for doing it – but it makes for very sombre reading, made worse because of a fatality.

Without going into the details, the articles relate to an Auckland Transport operator who had neglected maintenance of one of his trucks for many years.

Despite receiving warnings from NZTA and the police, including non-operational orders, he continued to use the truck. It was not registered, nor did it have a current CoF – at the time of the accident, it had been operating unregistered for two years and without a CoF for more than three. It was also reported that despite giving assurances to the authorities that he would not use the truck but would instead scrap it, the truck continued to be used, albeit after its registration plates had been swapped with another in the fleet.

The NRC story raises several issues that this sorry saga exposes, some of which have been raised in past issues of this magazine, such as the ease of getting and retaining a transport service licence and chain of responsibility (CoR).

Thankfully, this story is not representative of how the industry as a whole behaves. But others, outside the industry – for example, the anti-truck lobby – may not see it this way. What this story reveals is the dark, indeed very dark, side of the industry – a side that is not needed. The collective industry must do all it can to stamp out this type of operator and behaviour for good.

I must admit, however, that I am at a loss as to how the issues raised can be addressed. Perhaps it could come down to stricter CoR rules with more severe penalties. However, penalties can only be enforced if there is a willingness on the part of the Crown to do so. Even then, there is no guarantee there would be a behaviour change by some. Perhaps we need an offence of corporate manslaughter in New Zealand, as has been talked about for a few years now.

IN A HEADLINE in its 21 July edition (‘Public service shake-up: Who’s shuffling, snipping and restructuring’), The Post reported on how many positions within the public service have been lost because of ongoing restructuring. What intrigued me is that many of these positions were already vacancies and never had people in them, yet can now be claimed as a cost-saving measure. This is a well-tried trick within the service: build up a case for more staff but never employ them, knowing that when the next axe falls, as inevitably it will, these unfilled positions can be claimed as staff savings. It works most of the time, and the instigators of the restructuring are generally satisfied with it. Another intriguing aspect is that while several positions have or are to be disestablished, many new positions are to be established. Take the Department of Internal Affairs, for example, which proposes to disestablish 166 positions but create 106 new ones.

IN MID-AUGUST, ATN magazine summarised a recent report on the crash performance of PBS vehicles in Australia compared with conventional vehicles (‘Comparing PBS major crash performance over the past 15 years’). Seek it out; while there is little direct comparison between heavy vehicles operating across the Tasman and here, the overall outcomes are worth contemplating.

The Accidental Trucker